Glen Beck and the 1st Amendment

A looming First Amendment showdown drew closer Tuesday as a federal judge ordered conservative media host Glenn Beck to identify at least two confidential sources in connection with a defamation lawsuit stemming from Beck's reporting on the Boston Marathon bombing.
The suit was filed by Saudi Arabian student Abdulrahman Alharbi, who was injured at the scene of the deadly bombings. Beck continued to link the Saudi national to the attacks even after U.S. officials said publicly he'd been cleared.
U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris ruled that Beck must disclose the names of two Department of Homeland Security employees who allegedly gave a Beck producer information backing up the radio and TV host's claim that Alharbi was the "money man" behind the attack.
The judge said deposition testimony from Beck and two of his top deputies at the time — Joel Cheatwood and Joe Weasel — was "vague and often contradictory" about what the sources said and when they said it. She also noted that the key sources spoke directly only with Weasel, who claimed to record the information on Post-It notes "which he then discarded."
Saris said she ordered the production of records from several government agencies, but they were not of help in confirming what the Beck aides were allegedly told. "None of the documents supports the idea that Alharbi was the 'the money man' financing the Boston Marathon attacks," the Boston-based judge wrote in her 61-page ruling.

Click to expand...

I really want Beck to lose this, because he's a windbag. And I also don't think he had any sources, just bullshit he threw against the wall.

I haven't followed this. One thing I am not clear on from a quick read of it. ... Is she threatening him with jail if he defies her order? Or is it simply, "Reveal your [nonexistent] sources or else you are going to lose your case?"

If it is the first, I have a huge problem with it. Then it is a first amendment issue. If it is the second, it should be fair game in a defamation suit. Defamation suits hinge on false statements made with reckless disregard for the truth. A possible defense is that you acted in good faith -- even if someone was feeding you bad info. If you could simply rely on an "Well, I had a source, but I am not telling you who it is," defense, it would be ridiculous.

If you are a legit journalist, you should never rely on just an anonymous source. You need to try to verify anything an anonymous source tells you via other sources or with corroborating details from other places. I'd argue you should never report anything WITHOUT some level of independent verification. Even if you disagree about that, at the very least cover your ass (and gain credibility in what you are reporting), by saying in your report that your anonymous source couldn't verify what he or she was alleging, and you couldn't verify it on your own via other sources. Point out the efforts you made to try to verify what you are throwing out there. That way if you get sued like this, you can keep your source anonymous and at least have a semblance of a defense that you were not acting with reckless disregard for the truth.

From what I read, Beck himself never even spoke to these supposed sources, at least according to his lawyer's statement. He certainly didn't try to corroborate anything from other sources or give any evidence that he did. It reads like he defamed the guy, and he is trying every first amendment defense possible to avoid dealing with the consequences. First he tried to say the guy was a public figure, which is ridiculous. Then, he is trying to say that what he said may have been false, but he didn't do it with reckless disregard for the truth. I never like a judge ordering someone to reveal an anonymous source. The judge could have proceeded without that. In a typical defamation suit, it sounds like he'd be screwed either way.

Being sent to jail for failure to testify about a source is not a First Amendment issue. Journalists don't have privilege under the Constitution and generally are required to testify to anything a non-journalist would be required to testify to. That's why some states have shield laws.

You are correct. I do, however, consider it is a first amendment issue in that the forced disclosure of sources threatens the rights spelled out in the first amendment. It undercuts the media's independence and can deter coverage of things that a reporter is afraid might draw a subpoena. Those subpoenas certainly abridge the freedom of the press, which is exactly the way it is spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

The fact is, though, that it has never been recognized the way I am saying, unfortunately. Which is why I am a a huge advocate of shield laws and wish there was a Federal one.